R+L=J v.137

[Jon Weirgaryen]

I wonder if Dayne didn't feel guilty about helping RT cheat on Elia. I mean, AD was dornish, surely he didn't want his princess to be dishonored like that..

You don't cheat on a Dornish (eta: ...and live to tell the tale).

Either the Dornish agrees or you are a filletto nicely done with a stilletto.

[Ygrain]

You don't cheat on a Dornish (eta: ...and live to tell the tale).

Either the Dornish agrees or you are a filletto nicely done with a stilletto.

Stillettos were designed for stabbing, not slicing :P

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Stillettos were designed for stabbing, not slicing :P

Ah the fine details...

[Ygrain]

Ah the fine details...

Ezio Auditore disapproves...

On topic: it has been speculated that Arthur and Elia might have had certain arrangements with Rhaegar.

[Avalatis]

It seemed that the Dornish culture was more accepting of open sexual relationships than the other cultures of Westeros. Maybe it's because I've been watching the 4th season of the show recently, but I thought the books also implied such a thing. If this is the case I don't think Elia would have had that big of a problem with Rhaegar wanting additional children through another woman. If Elia knew, did her family know as well?

Seems like it was a well guarded secret and they haven't displayed any knowledge of it. But at the same time they don't seem all that upset at the Targarens (considering Rhaegar ran out on Elia and Aerys disinherited Elia's children). For a family that got double wronged by Aerys they seem pretty determined to see a Targaren back on the throne.

[XSarellaX]

Sexual freedom before being married or having a paramour is different from taking a second wife. Maybe Elia wouldnt care if Rhaegar loved or had sex with another woman, but I doubt she was completely OK with him running away and creating all that mess.

Besides, it's not just about what Elia thought, it's about how everyone else perceives the situation. And GRRM himself mentioned Dorne was angered by Rhaegar's treatment of Elia

[MtnLion]

It seemed that the Dornish culture was more accepting of open sexual relationships than the other cultures of Westeros. Maybe it's because I've been watching the 4th season of the show recently, but I thought the books also implied such a thing. If this is the case I don't think Elia would have had that big of a problem with Rhaegar wanting additional children through another woman. If Elia knew, did her family know as well?

Seems like it was a well guarded secret and they haven't displayed any knowledge of it. But at the same time they don't seem all that upset at the Targarens (considering Rhaegar ran out on Elia and Aerys disinherited Elia's children). For a family that got double wronged by Aerys they seem pretty determined to see a Targaren back on the throne.

That seems to be particularly harsher than what we know. First it is never stated that Rhaegar "ran out on Elia", it seems far more likely that there was an understanding. Second, no where does it say that Aerys disinherited Rhaegar's children. He did make some noise about them smelling Dornish, but nothing further. You see, as the quote states, when Rhaegar dies, Aerys' next child and heir is Viserys. BUT, the heir to the Iron Throne or Crown is Rhaegar's eldest surviving child. Jaime and many others state this, no one knows about any changes. ;)

[RumHam]

That seems to be particularly harsher than what we know. First it is never stated that Rhaegar "ran out on Elia", it seems far more likely that there was an understanding.

This is certainly possible, but I'm curious why you think it's more likely. I don't recall any suggestion of it in the books.

You see, as the quote states, when Rhaegar dies, Aerys' next child and heir is Viserys. BUT, the heir to the Iron Throne or Crown is Rhaegar's eldest surviving child. Jaime and many others state this, no one knows about any changes. ;)

:blink: You're really stretching logic with that one.

[Avalatis]

Sexual freedom before being married or having a paramour is different from taking a second wife. Maybe Elia wouldnt care if Rhaegar loved or had sex with another woman, but I doubt she was completely OK with him running away and creating all that mess.

Besides, it's not just about what Elia thought, it's about how everyone else perceives the situation. And GRRM himself mentioned Dorne was angered by Rhaegar's treatment of Elia

I'm not sure there is enough information to state whether she was okay or not. But I felt that with their open relationship type culture it is possible that this wouldn't be a big deal for her. Obviously they would want her children to be ahead in the line of succession.

"And GRRM himself mentioned Dorne was angered by Rhaegar's treatment of Elia"

I would have to see the quote. But that would answer the question about the family being in the know. Clearly though he abandoned her for nearly a year (as far as we know) and that can't look good.

[SFDanny]

What does this new evidence mean? Part 4.

And, please, If you haven't already, look at Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3

Before going on to the main topic of this fourth in a series of posts, let me say a few more words concerning the Kingsguard Oath. I shouldn't have to write this, but it seems there is some confusion. The Oath in no way binds the king. A king can eliminate or change the oath at any time he wants to; although we have no evidence the wording of the oath has ever been changed since Visenya wrote it. A king can abolish the Kingsguard anytime he wishes. As well, the king also can order a member of the Kingsguard to do something that violates his oath. It is completely up to the individual to either violate his vows, or stand by them. Usually not following an order given to you by your king has some rather nasty consequences, and given the fact the oath also tells the Sworn Brother to obey his king it is likely that most will err on the side of following orders. Also given the wide range of characters who wear the white cloak, one would expect different responses to such a situation from different Sworn Brothers. Let's take the most extreme example of a contradiction between the Kingsguard Oath and a king's orders. So what happens if a king tells a member of the Kingsguard to kill the king? Never happened - that we know of - but, if it did, it would be a fundamental contradiction between the first duty and the duty to obey. My take is that it is clear that a Kingsguard who is true to his oath, true to his vows, would tell a king that is an order he cannot follow, and take the consequences of not following a direct order of the king. That is what the oath tells him to do given the clear nature of what the first duty means.

Unlike the hypothetical suicide by Kingsguard scenario, we have many situations that we know of, and probably thousands we don't know about, in which the orders of a king and the duty of a Kingsguard to follow their first duty sparks tension in trying to fulfill both the first duty and the order to obey. No king wants to be turned into a bubble boy - unable to interact with his world by the actions of his Kingsguard trying to anticipate every possible danger to his person. Each king sets the boundaries he is comfortable with, and each Kingsguard, worthy of the name, pushes back in anyway he can to eliminate at least some of the potential dangers from becoming real. Think of Ser Barristan's remarks to Robert trying to get him to stay out of the melee in the Hand's tourney as an example of how a Kingsguard should push back on his king's orders. Some kings allow some push back, others don't. Some Kingsguard try to do their duty, others don't.

However, none of this is what we are discussing when we are discussing the actions of the men at the tower of joy. Every instance must be examined on its own because of different individuals who are involved, and the time, place, and circumstances surrounding each instance. Here we have three men who have been given an order by a prince, not by their king. A prince who they believe to be dead, and a new king who is on Dragonstone, and who needs one of them at least to come to him and fulfill their duty. Much, much different than Ser Barristan stepping aside when Robert commands him to do so when hunting the boar. While Ser Barristan still thinks he failed in his duty to protect his king, we can, as Ned does, understand why he followed Robert's order. How does this apply to Dayne, Hightower, and Whent? It doesn't. The examples are apples and oranges.

The Kingsguard trio decides to ignore their first duty in favor of their dead prince's order to guard Lyanna and, perhaps, her child. There really is no other conclusion to make given knowledge of the decree. Even if we are dealing with timing issues that don't allow the Kingsguard to have sent one of their number on the way to Viserys when Ned arrives, then the Oath tells them they still should do whatever they can to get to Viserys - even if that means they have to turn Lyanna and her child over to Ned. They have abandoned Viserys, their king, just as Selmy does, and they have forsaken their basic mission as Sworn Brothers. Why, then would Ned think so highly of these three oath breakers, who boast of keeping their vows? That's the topic of this post.

Ned Stark's view of honor

I tried to speak to this question earlier in this post, and I see others have reached the same conclusion I have in posts after it, but let me follow through on my promise to finish with this topic with my thoughts on Ned Stark's view of honor and the implications of that in his view of Dayne, Hightower, and Whent. We are led to believe Lord Eddard Stark has a strictly black and white view of honor by what others think of him. His best friend Robert even tells us of the supposed unbending nature of Ned's honor:

"Wylla. Yes." The king grinned. "She must have been a rare wench if she could make Lord Eddard Stark forget his honor, even for an hour." (AGoT 92) bold emphasis added

"Ah, say that I'm a better king than Aerys and be done with it. You never could lie for love nor honor, Ned Stark." (AGoT 260) bold emphasis added

"You hate this Lord Stark," Dany said.

"He took from me all I loved, for the sake of a few lice-ridden poachers and his precious honor," Ser Jorah said bitterly. (AGoT 326) bold emphasis added

"The thing is, you did not know the Starks. Lord Eddard is a proud, honorable, and honest man, and his lady wife is worse." (AGoT 380) bold emphasis added

"And I knew Ned Stark as well. Your father was no friend of mine, but only a fool would doubt his honor or his honesty. (ASoS 866) bold emphasis added

The first two are from Robert, the third is Ser Jorah, the fourth is Tyrion, and the last is Stannis. More can be added, but the picture of Ned we get from almost all the other characters is a man of unbending honor, or at least with the exception of fathering a bastard child. Is that how Ned sees himself? No, it is not.

"You were not there," Ned said, bitterness in his voice. Troubled sleep was no stranger to him. He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night. "There was no honor in that conquest." (AGoT 96) bold emphasis added

So, Ned lies, unlike what Robert tells us, and, even though the act of lying haunts his nights he never reveals his lies and confesses them to anyone we know about. He even goes on to tell his daughter that some lies are honorable.

"I hate them," Arya confided, red-faced, sniffling. "The Hound and the queen and the king and Prince Joffrey. I hate all of them. Joffrey lied, it wasn't the way he said. I hate Sansa too. She did remember, she just lied so Joffrey would like her."

"We all lie," her father said. "Or did you truly think I'd believe that Nymeria ran off?"

Arya blushed guiltily. "Jory promised not to tell."

"Jory kept his word," her father said with a smile. "There are some things I do not need to be told. Even a blind man could see that wolf would never have left you willingly."

"We had to throw rocks," she said miserably. "I told her to run, to go be free, that I didn't want her anymore. There were other wolves for her to play with, we heard them howling, and Jory said the woods were fill of game, so she'd have deer to hunt. Only she kept following, and we had to throw rocks. I hit her twice. She whined and looked at me and I felt so 'shamed, but it was right, wasn't it? The queen would have killed her."

"It was right," her father said. "And even the lie was ... not without honor." (AGoT 186-187) bold emphasis added

Besides being one of my favorite scenes in the whole series, this tells us not only that Ned doesn't see the world in strictly black and white terms. We all lie and sometimes it is the right thing to do to lie. That is a more nuanced, subtle understanding of the world than the stiff-necked character others would have us believe of Ned. But it also tells us something about Ned concerning what he considers makes up an "honorable lie." Nymeria is innocent of anything other than protecting his daughter. A lie to save her is honorable to Ned.

That is not to say Ned doesn't value oaths, or vows, or honesty. He plainly does. It just means he thinks there are times when it may be more honorable to break an oath, or to break a vow, or to tell a lie, than it is to keep them or be honest.

"That was his curse. Robert would swear undying love and forget them before evenfall, but Ned Stark kept his vows. He thought of the promises he'd made Lyanna as she lay dying, and the price he'd paid to keep them." (AGoT 318) bold emphasis added

Ned sees himself as a man who kept his vows, but does he? Some of this will have to wait on the revelation of what those promises to Lyanna were exactly, but let me assume for the moment that it entails taking Lyanna and Rhaegar's child and hiding his identity from the rest of the world by raising Jon as his bastard. If so, he keeps his vows to Lyanna, but does he keep his vows to Robert? No, Ned not only lies to Robert about who Jon is, but he commits treason to his new king by doing so. The vow to his dying sister is more honorable and more important to Ned than the lies he must tell and the treason he must do towards Robert. Why would he do so? Because, as with Nymeria, Jon and Lyanna are innocents in need of his protection. That is his touchstone. Not a formal recitation of words, but to do what he sees as a fundamental good. It is Ser Duncan's choice when he stops Aerion from brutalizing Tanselle. It is Ser Davos's choice when he sends Edric Storm away from Stannis's and Melisandre's reach. Unlike Ser Duncan or Ser Davos, Ned cannot stand before Robert and tell him he refuses to say who Jon is because only a lie will save Jon from Elia's children's fate, but it is the same kind of standing up for innocents nonetheless. And it is just this that separates Ned's view of honor from what others think he is all about.

She slapped him.

"I shall wear that as a badge of honor," Ned said dryly.

"Honor," she spat. "How dare you play the noble lord with me! What do you take me for? You've a bastard of your own, I've seen him. Who was the mother, I wonder? Some Dornish peasant you raped while her holdfast burned? A whore? Or was it the grieving sister, the Lady Ashara? She threw herself into the sea, I'm told. Why was that? For the brother you slew, or the child you stole? Tell me, my honorable Lord Eddard, how are you any different from Robert, or me, or Jaime?"

"For a start," said Ned. "I do not kill children." (AGoT 407) bold emphasis added

"For a start I do not kill children," says Ned. But why is that the first thing that Ned says to Cersei? Perhaps it is knowing Jaime's attempt to kill his son Bran? Or having heard rumors of Cersei killing Robert's bastard children. Or Tywin's murder of Elia's children. No doubt that is part of it, but it is also Robert's approval of Tywin's acts and Robert's order to kill Daenerys and her unborn child. All of these are things Ned abhors. Acts that Ned will risk his life to stop. More than anything his refusal to go along or to accept these acts define how Ned views honor. So what does that mean to what Ned thinks about Dayne, Hightower, and Whent?

"I was with her when she died," Ned reminded the king. "She wanted to come home to rest beside Brandon and Father." He could hear her still at times. Promise me, and had cried in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister's eyes." (AGoT 35-36) bold emphasis added

Usually this section is cited to show support of Lyanna's dying from childbirth, but what I want to point out is something else. The fear in Lyanna's eyes. What was she fearful of? Again assuming Lyanna has had Rhaegar's son, I think the fear is a very real fear that the brother she loves might turn over her son to Robert and to Elia's children's fate. Ned was the rebel general who was in command when the victorious rebels, fresh from the victory at the Trident and fresh from killing the father of her child, march into King's Landing. He is there when Elia's children are brutally slain by Lannister men. Even if she loves Ned, she must fear for her son. Until Ned promises to safeguard Jon from harm, including hiding his identity from Robert. She asks Ned to commit treason to Robert to save her child, even if she doesn't say it in those words. And Ned agrees to do just that.

Now, if Lyanna has these fears, then what must Dayne, Hightower, and Whent have thought when Ned and his six companions ride up to the tower? They cannot have thought any differently than Lyanna. They die in order to safeguard Jon from any chance Ned would turn him over to Robert. They die in order to safeguard Lyanna from being brought back to Robert, if by some miracle she survives her fever and the loss of blood. They die to safeguard the innocents in their charge. They do so ignoring their first duty to Viserys, but this is a choice Ned would not only understand and respect, but admire.

So, we have no problem in understanding Ned's view of Dayne, Hightower, and Whent. When he finds Jon, and speaks to Lyanna and gives her his promises he knows why the Kingsguard died to keep him out of the tower. And in that understanding these three are forever etched into Ned's memories as just, valiant men who tragically died for their vows. A different vow than many thought, but a more important one to Ned.

"I'll give squire Raymun his knighthood." He slid his sword out of his sheath an shouldered Dunk aside. "Raymun of House Fossoway," he began solemnly, touching the blade to the squire's right shoulder, "in the name of the Warrior I charge you to be brave." The sword moved from his right shoulder to his left. "In the name of the Father I charge you to be just." Back to the right. "In the name of the Mother I charge you to defend the young and innocent. The left. "In the name of the Maid I charge you to protect all women ..." (The Hedge Knight 518) emphasis added

So, I hope I've laid out my thoughts on this subject in a understandable manner. I've gone to great length in trying to show what I think is support for my view of these issues, but given the "prove it" types of response by some, I thought it necessary. I hope this helps.

[MtnLion]

Now, if Lyanna has these fears, then what must Dayne, Hightower, and Whent have thought when Ned and his six companions ride up to the tower?

They think that they are protecting the heir to the throne. They give all their strength and blood to ward him from harm.

They cannot have thought any differently than Lyanna.

They are Kingsguard, they do think differently than Lyanna. They have an obligation to protect the king. If Viserys is the rightful heir, then they have an obligation to protect him, and they are not doing that at the tower. They can split forces, and accept Ned's offer to discuss sending one or more of their group to Viserys. They could have split before Ned arrived, as well.

They die in order to safeguard Jon from any chance Ned would turn him over to Robert.

They die to protect the rightful heir to the Iron Throne from the Usurper. It is pretty clear int he dialog as Ned remembers it. They call Robert the Usurper. They express their allegiance to House Targaryen. And, they cite their vow to use all of their strength and give their blood to protect the king as the reason that they stand and fight, as a group.

They die in order to safeguard Lyanna from being brought back to Robert, if by some miracle she survives her fever and the loss of blood.

They die protecting the heir apparent. They die protecting their king, as all good Kingsguard vow to do.

They die to safeguard the innocents in their charge.

The innocent heir in their charge.

They do so ignoring their first duty to Viserys, but this is a choice Ned would not only understand and respect, but admire.

It would make them a shining example to all the world only if they fulfilled their duty. It would make Arthur the greatest among them, only if he fulfilled his duty. The first duty of the Kingsguard is to protect the king, dying to protect him, if need be. They could have taken Jon and fled to Dragonstone before Ned arrived, if Lyanna was of no consequence. They stay because she is a princess, and Jon is the heir to the Iron Throne.

[MtnLion]

And, it is always helpful, when trying to understand a character's view of what a particular phrase means, if that character has voiced or thought of the meaning somewhere in the text. Since we know that Ned was present for Jaime swearing his vow, it is pretty obvious that Ned knows what it is. But, we even have Ned putting it into words to Robert, about Jaime: His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but did not permit the words to pass his lips. "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own. Then he opened that king's throat with a sword."

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

That Elia was dornish, in no way means that she would have been fine with Rhaegar having "a lover on the side", or a second wife. Not every Dornishman or Dornishwoman is the same in personality.

Btw, we might know only little of Elia, but I doubt she was stupid enough to not realise that a second wife for Rhaegar would mean a threat for Aegon's inheritance. Rhaegar could promise that it would be fine, sure, but people change their minds all the time, and a promise from Rhaegar would thus in no way have secured Aegon's future.

Did Rhaegar tell her about the prophecies? Who knows.. perhaps he told her nothing, perhaps he told her only little, perhaps he told her everything. I hope he at least told her something.

Did Arthur know? Possible. He and Rhaegar were close friends, but it might be possible that Rhaegar kept the core of things to himself, in the same way as how no one was allowed to accompany him into Summerhall.

[SFDanny]

That Elia was dornish, in no way means that she would have been fine with Rhaegar having "a lover on the side", or a second wife. Not every Dornishman or Dornishwoman is the same in personality.

Btw, we might know only little of Elia, but I doubt she was stupid enough to not realise that a second wife for Rhaegar would mean a threat for Aegon's inheritance. Rhaegar could promise that it would be fine, sure, but people change their minds all the time, and a promise from Rhaegar would thus in no way have secured Aegon's future.

Did Rhaegar tell her about the prophecies? Who knows.. perhaps he told her nothing, perhaps he told her only little, perhaps he told her everything. I hope he at least told her something.

Did Arthur know? Possible. He and Rhaegar were close friends, but it might be possible that Rhaegar kept the core of things to himself, in the same way as how no one was allowed to accompany him into Summerhall.

We do know from Daenerys's vision in the House of the Undying that Rhaegar tells her Aegon is the Prince who was promised and his was the song of ice and fire. I think that points to at least her knowing something of Rhaegar's view of prophecy and the importance of their children in it. You're right, of course, that we don't know enough about Elia to know what she thought of Rhaegar running off with Lyanna. We do know her brother the Prince of Dorne wasn't happy about it. The points you raise about the effect of a second wife and her children on the rights of Elia's children, the possible effects on the influence of Dornish power on the Iron Throne, and all of that combined with a general concern for how Elia was perceived to be treated publicly by Rhaegar must have factored heavily in Prince Doran's unhappiness.

[UnmaskedLurker]

That Elia was dornish, in no way means that she would have been fine with Rhaegar having "a lover on the side", or a second wife. Not every Dornishman or Dornishwoman is the same in personality.

Btw, we might know only little of Elia, but I doubt she was stupid enough to not realise that a second wife for Rhaegar would mean a threat for Aegon's inheritance. Rhaegar could promise that it would be fine, sure, but people change their minds all the time, and a promise from Rhaegar would thus in no way have secured Aegon's future.

Did Rhaegar tell her about the prophecies? Who knows.. perhaps he told her nothing, perhaps he told her only little, perhaps he told her everything. I hope he at least told her something.

Did Arthur know? Possible. He and Rhaegar were close friends, but it might be possible that Rhaegar kept the core of things to himself, in the same way as how no one was allowed to accompany him into Summerhall.

As SFDanny pointed out, we know that Rhaegar discussed the prophecy with Elia -- we have the HotU vision. So Elia knew that Rhaegar believed he needed three children if the world was to be saved (irrelevant that Rhaegar was wrong -- he believed it and Elia knew he believed it). We also know that Elia was not capable of having a third child.

So if Rhaegar explains to Elia that because she cannot have any more children, he needs to marry another woman in order to have the third head of the dragon needed to save the world, what is Elia going to say to him? Under those circumstances, Elia really has no choice but to accept the arrangement and try to make the best of it. She might not have been thrilled with the situation, but arguing with Rhaegar would do no good. Her best move would be to try to work with Rhaegar and get as much assurance as she could in terms of the protection of her own children. And I suspect such an exchange is precisely what occurred. I am not suggesting (as perhaps some might) that because she is Dornish, she would accept the arrangement whole-heartedly. But I think Rhaegar told her what he planned, and I think ultimately she was in on the plans.

[SFDanny]

They think that they are protecting the heir to the throne. They give all their strength and blood to ward him from harm.

They don't think they are guarding the king given the decree that tells them he is on Dragonstone. So, no, they don't die doing their first duty. If you mean Viserys's heir, then it still doesn't relieve them of the first duty to guard the king.

They are Kingsguard, they do think differently than Lyanna. They have an obligation to protect the king. If Viserys is the rightful heir, then they have an obligation to protect him, and they are not doing that at the tower. They can split forces, and accept Ned's offer to discuss sending one or more of their group to Viserys. They could have split before Ned arrived, as well.

You miss my entire point. Purposefully or not. It is not that they can't have a different perspective than Lyanna, but rather that they must share Lyanna's fear for Jon's safety - even if that fear is in the form of Lyanna's beloved brother. If Lyanna fears what Ned will do, then we must know the Kingsguard fears for Jon's safety as well. They must also fear for Lyanna's safety, if they believe she has any chance of living.

As to "Ned's offer," he makes none. Ned may be willing to talk about such a thing, but he never offers to do so. And yes, they should have split their forces and sent at least one of their number to Dragonstone. The decree tells them they must do so in order to fulfill their vows.

They die to protect the rightful heir to the Iron Throne from the Usurper. It is pretty clear int he dialog as Ned remembers it. They call Robert the Usurper. They express their allegiance to House Targaryen. And, they cite their vow to use all of their strength and give their blood to protect the king as the reason that they stand and fight, as a group.

Do you just make this stuff up? Where in the dialogue do they say they are protecting their king? They never say that, and you know they don't. It says they swore a vow. What vow are they talking about? Given the decree it sure isn't the first duty of the Kingsguard they are talking about because that would put them with Viserys. Perhaps they have decided Jon will make a better king than Viserys. Not a outrageous thing to decide, but that makes them Ser Criston Cole even if they have better reasons for becoming kingmakers than Cole, and he's not exactly a shining example to the world or a person we would think Ned would admire. Especially, given the dialogue Ned has so many years later with Littlefinger when Petyr suggests supporting Joffrey over Stannis in the aftermath of Robert's death.

They die protecting the heir apparent. They die protecting their king, as all good Kingsguard vow to do.

The decree tells them they are not protecting the king Aerys named as his heir. All this does is show you can't deal with new information.

The innocent heir in their charge.

He is not their lawful king. Viserys is. That Jon is an innocent child that they protect is not in dispute. The effect of the decree is but you don't seem to want to actually deal with that.

It would make them a shining example to all the world only if they fulfilled their duty. It would make Arthur the greatest among them, only if he fulfilled his duty. The first duty of the Kingsguard is to protect the king, dying to protect him, if need be. They could have taken Jon and fled to Dragonstone before Ned arrived, if Lyanna was of no consequence. They stay because she is a princess, and Jon is the heir to the Iron Throne.

This is your definition of what would the only thing to make them a shining example to the world. It is not necessarily Ned's definition or the reason Ned admires them. I've shown Ned's thinking about honor and why I think his view is different than what you think it is, but you don't seem to want to deal with that. Yes, they could have left Lyanna - I never said she was of no consequence - but the whole point is that the decree shows they decided to stay with her and, perhaps, her child despite what the decree tells them concerning where their first duty lays.

And, it is always helpful, when trying to understand a character's view of what a particular phrase means, if that character has voiced or thought of the meaning somewhere in the text. Since we know that Ned was present for Jaime swearing his vow, it is pretty obvious that Ned knows what it is. But, we even have Ned putting it into words to Robert, about Jaime: His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but did not permit the words to pass his lips. "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own. Then he opened that king's throat with a sword."

No one is saying Ned didn't understand this basic part of the Kingsguard Oath. Whether or not Ned understands the lesson Jaime teaches his Kingsguard about the importance of the first duty over obeying the orders of Tommen or Joffrey is another thing altogether and is open to question. After all, the Kingsguard Jaime is schooling don't seem to understand it. Ned understands the Kingsguard swears vows. What vow Ser Gerold references is under question, as is Ned's understanding of what the White Bull is saying.

[Avalatis]

"So, Ned lies, unlike what Robert tells us, and, even though the act of lying haunts his nights he never reveals his lies and confesses them to anyone we know about. He even goes on to tell his daughter that some lies are honorable."

Well Ned was obviously not a robot. But I think there is a priority list to what he supports. If two things come into conflict, he attempts to do what is right. Nymeria was innocent, so the duty to tell the truth would be a lesser right than the duty to protect the innocent in this case. There is always going to be a list of priorities for every person. And sometimes some priorities are hard to determine in terms of which comes first; which requires a individual judgement call.

"Ned sees himself as a man who kept his vows, but does he?"

Yeah, that is exactly what the passage you quoted stated. He swore vows to his sister to some effect. It might have been as simple as raise my son as your own and keep him safe. The keep him safe part would require him to lie to his King.

"If so, he keeps his vows to Lyanna, but does he keep his vows to Robert? No, Ned not only lies to Robert about who Jon is, but he commits treason to his new king by doing so."

Do we even know what the vows a LP makes to his King? Are you implying that he has vowed to tell all secrets and only speak the truth to his King? I think that is unlikely. It might have been seen as treason to some, but to Ned he had no intention of pushing Jon's claim to the throne. He was denying his birth right and felt that Jon would live a normal life in the North (as he holds no love for the South).

But assuming there was a direct conflict between his vow to Lyanna and to his new King Robert. The conflict is resolved by doing what is right in his eyes. That doesn't mean he isn't troubled by the lies, but he is maintaining his vows to Lyanna. As the alternative is the death of an innocent and also his nephew.

So you would have to apply this same reasoning to the Kingsguard. What vows were they in conflict on? We assume they were obeying Prince Rhaegar's last orders. And then they were in in conflict with protecting the new King. The problem is they didn't have to choose one over the other. As you pointed out earlier in your post they could have sent a single Kingsguard or two to Viserys while still maintaining their vow to obey Rhaegar's last command. In Ned's case he had to either violate his oath to his dying sister or presumably violate an oath to his King. It was one or the other in this hypothetical. The 3 KGs could do both. They also don't face a moral quandary (besides leaving Viserys without a Kingsguard) as they don't appear to negotiate with Ned to take his supposed bastard nephew. There is no reason to think these KG thought Ned would kill his only family.

>And it is just this that separates Ned's view of honor from what others think he is all about.

I think everyone views Ned as a good moral man (besides Jorah, who was an immoral slaver at the time he was on the receiving end of Ned's honor). This isn't an either/or situation. He had two conflicting vows that he had no real choice in making (one to his King, one to dying sister's last wish). He is obviously going to side with the Vow that is moral and right over the vow that kills innocents.

I would say that his Vows to Robert aren't as extreme and specific as you make them out to be. Considering he had no inclination to help Robert kill Dany. There was no mention from any characters that Ned was dishonorable for that.

"She asks Ned to commit treason to Robert to save her child, even if she doesn't say it in those words. And Ned agrees to do just that."

You use treason too loosely. Ned doesn't just agree, he is being begged by his dying sister who he loved. Culturally (in our culture and ones the reader can relate to) a dying wish is of paramount importance to uphold. I believe this is also why Robert immediately shuts up about why she was buried there in Winterfel as he understands the importance of following through with such a wish.

"Now, if Lyanna has these fears, then what must Dayne, Hightower, and Whent have thought when Ned and his six companions ride up to the tower?"

That he could have brought an army.

But your argument fails here as Hightower is not one to put a good deed over his duties as a Kingsguard. While Ned could potentially perceive this ill conceived fight to death as honorable, it doesn't make sense. The man stood by watching people burned alive and while Aerys raped and abused his wife. You think he would fight to the death to protect a bastard from his own Uncle? Obviously they might have concerns about Ned, but this is fairly ridiculous.

On top of that Hightower and co. would have to decide not to send someone to Viserys before Ned arrives (as they probably did not expect Ned to show up right then and there). Viserys is in danger from an army pursuing him and possible assassins trying to end his line. No one (in their perspective) knows about Lyanna and Jon. Why would they keep 3 kingsguard there to "protect an innocent" as you state if there was no reason to suspect anyone knew he was a Targaren.

But yes this passage is about Ned's view of honor. These three men instead of negotiating with the uncle of the child assume he's a murder and fight to the death to stop him from seeing his sister and the baby he doesn't even know exists. There is no honor here, only possible stupidity.

"They do so ignoring their first duty to Viserys, but this is a choice Ned would not only understand and respect, but admire"

Ignoring being the key word there. Choosing between a rock and a hard place is one thing. Ignoring their first duty is what they did. This is also apples and oranges as we do not know the extent of Neds vows to Robert were.

[Ser Creighton]

That seems to be particularly harsher than what we know. First it is never stated that Rhaegar "ran out on Elia", it seems far more likely that there was an understanding. Second, no where does it say that Aerys disinherited Rhaegar's children. He did make some noise about them smelling Dornish, but nothing further. You see, as the quote states, when Rhaegar dies, Aerys' next child and heir is Viserys. BUT, the heir to the Iron Throne or Crown is Rhaegar's eldest surviving child. Jaime and many others state this, no one knows about any changes. ;)

So if some people don't know about something or don't talk about it then it didn't happen? So Rhaegar and Lyanna were never married, Jon is not there child, and Jon was never crowned anything.

Last I checked Ran said it was a matter of record.

[Ygrain]

Decree? What decree? Could someone point me to a quote that 1) Aerys issued a decree, and 2) that the KG were aware of its existence?

BTW, given that Aerys was planning to burn KL, would he have bothered with a decree when Aegon was going to be toast with everyone else, anyway?

[UnmaskedLurker]

They don't think they are guarding the king given the decree that tells them he is on Dragonstone. So, no, they don't die doing their first duty. If you mean Viserys's heir, then it still doesn't relieve them of the first duty to guard the king.

Why do you have any level of confidence that the KG are aware that Aerys named Viserys as the heir to the throne? We don't know for sure that he did (although I admit that WOIAF suggest he might have), but even if Aerys did, the exchange among Ned and the KG make it abundantly clear that the KG has no knowledge of any such decree and considered Jon to be the heir to the throne.